Certainly this is just a case of brainwashing not Islam. The process is fairly simple: 1. Find unlearned Muslims 2. Tell them what Islam is (cuz they don't know better) 3. Make them angered against American policies 4. Radicalize them 5. Let them do something stupid. ---Booom! Dude is Dead--------- This cycle would be stopped if the person was ever exposed to 'normal' Muslims and 'taught' Islam. Whose fault is it : Muslims. There needs to be an active campaign by Muslims to teach Muslims how to relate Islam with political events and show them ways to channel any anger (some of it justified) that results from understanding certain political realities. Make them knowledgeable before someone gets a chance to brainwash them. Most of 'self-radicalized' terrorism stops immediately. As for the greater 'war on terror'- the idea itself is stupid that creates more terrorists- no way to end terrorism by such a policy.
I think it's a good example how two minds can be twisted into doing unthinkable harm. As bells had mentioned, they had the world at their feet, yet they threw it all away for an idea that required a violent statement. I suspect the older brother was responsible for turning the younger brother, but we will see as the investigation moves forward.
Hey, the ricin guy got released. And now some nuts are banding together to "free Tsarnaev", and claim that double amputee Baumann was planted there. Tsarnaev's even got a bunch of hot chicks rooting for him. Crazy.
I am sure they radicalize all groups out there, so when they want someone to use to project out this stuff then can show that someone out there has hate for others, when infact we are all haters. If you have ever been targeted by your gov, i am sure you know how they do radicalize people. For people that have not been targeted by groups like fbi, you cannot really say what it is like. They are very good at destroying a persons life if they want. Not saying its all cases, but on this boston thing you can be as sure as you can be that the fbi radicalized the older brother at least.
Did it help? How many innocent persons were terrorized by the police? Listen to what the innocent people are describing as they had guns pointed at them and were treated like suspects while 'voluntarily' following the instructions of the gov. And I wont open my door for the police. My county has been warned if they ever pull a stunt like that again, I will sue. Been there done that. When the cops knock on my door they talk to me through the locked door. If they dont like that, they can get off my porch and I will (and have) come outside to talk with them. And no. They did not catch the kid they were chasing. Of the 4 searches for a suspect in my neighborhood (over the nearly 30 years I have live here), exactly 1 was captured in the area. A fleeing drunk driver. Very drunk. And they got him with the dogs 50 feet from the truck he had abandoned. Of the 4 suspects 3 were captured outside, one turned himself in from his brothers home 10 miles away. And that is the typical reaction of a fleeing criminal. They dont draw attention to themselves they run and hide or try to slip away unnoticed. These guys had already released a private citizen (which is how the police became aware of their presence). Again and again in this episode, it is private citizens who gave the police the info, not the police figuring it out for themselves. When will they trust americans again?
Maybe so: but not all Islamism is the result of insanity, unless religious conservatism itself is insanity.
Matters of Context There is certainly a point past which we can reasonably assert that a paradigm reliant on faith—here defined as a persistent belief in aspects of reality that defy mundane demonstration and definition—will coincide, with some significant tributary causal relationship, with delusional deviation. Discussing perceptions of reality with people of enlightened faith, including many of that nebulous designation, "liberal Christianity", is a bit like discussing whether it's barley or food, or perhaps what food eats. But discussing perceptions of reality with conservative faith, at some point, becomes almost literally a question of whether it's beer, a fermented grain beverage, or evidence of the Devil. At the point we countenance such violence in the name of Islam, there is much we can do to contribute to longer-term solutions. The problem is that it is originally reactionary; Martin Riesebrodt's analysis of fundamentalism holds. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It may well be that the current generation is lost to the fight, and we must guard against them for a long time to come, but the reason it is important to consider, say, the American or Western contribution to the scourge of this murderous movement wearing Quranic vestments, is that perceptions of injustice, persistent economic inequality, and other factors associated with conditions that Americans have helped maintain in the name of our national interests not only give these people a target for their reaction, it helps motivate it. And that fact exists regardless of what we think of its moral value. But at the same time, while we resist the urge to give over to terror, if the terrorists compel us to avoid actions that are in our long-term interests, anyway, because we stubbornly don't want to be seen as giving over to terror, they win that point. The phenomenon exists in a specific context associated with specific conditions. What elevated Christianity out of barbarism was a sense of having something to lose. For the Western heritage, that meant empowerment; for the Islamic heritage, that has meant a good deal of subjugation in recent decades. And while that oppression is both external and internal, it doesn't help to be seen as the empire "propping up dictators". Looking ahead, the American future is most secure in any context as the world comes to equality and justice. These ought to be our better interests, regardless of the fact of terrorism. But it is true that we have brought our focus a little too near, so that we are pursuing immediate and middle-term rewards at the expense of long-term security, be it military, economic, or otherwise generally societal. That the effects of this focus sometimes coincide with the presence of militant response is predictable is not specifically an indictment. Rather, as we achieve various degrees of idyllic justice—peace and prosperity for all human kind, or something like that—we remove aspects of whatever perceptions of inequality and injustice contribute to the spectre against which this reactionary movement reacts. What we are witnessing is taking place in a specific context. If it wasn't religious violence, it would be labor violence, or trade violence, territorial pissings, resource monopolization, or even flat-out attrition. The general context of what we are witnessing occurs amid a range in which some manner of violence will occur within some part of the broader societal marketplace. That it has gone this far establishes that this particular context of conservative religion exists well beyond the threshold for insanity. ____________________ Notes: Riesebrodt, Martin. Pious Passion: The Emergence of Modern Fundamentalism in the United States and Iran. Trans. by Don Renau. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993.
The FBI's knowledge is directly proportional to the degree to which we are a totalitarian police state, so be thankful they are clueless about some things.
It's pretty crazy that you clearly explain the link between religion and violence, and then deny that religion was to blame. Religion is precisely the thing that denies and forbids doubt, and that applies to so-called moderate religions as well as more extreme ones. The agenda of these violent individuals was strengthened by the violent and absolutist religion. Indeed, few people would be as willing to risk death if it weren't for the promise of paradise.
It is Islam, just not your sect of Islam. This is a form of the no true Scotsman fallacy. Do you think these people didn't read the Quran?
This was the same cognitive dissonance I was up against in the thread about the mob sacking that city in Pakistan. Enjoy the accusations of bigotry, spider.
The denial is that any specific religion is to be singled out and blamed - and also to remind folks that the a priori violently inclined choose not only among their religious options but among compatible styles of belief, their fervor. That's probably not that significant - lots of people risk death for a cause or a tribe without promise of paradise foremost in their minds. A safer program would be to find "unlearned Muslims" (whatever that means), teach them the basic principles of secular humanism (cuz they don't know better), and welcome them into the ranks of those who most often don't set out to terrorize their neighbors and do murder in crowds of their fellow citizens. Because learned Muslims, like the learned of other fundamentalist creeds, too often do not belong to those ranks.
Their uncle Ruslan precisely echoed this point. He said Tamerlan didn't know better and was misled by Misha.
The Tsarnaev brothers were educated, as are most suicide bombers. It's not true that they are uneducated or illiterate and thus easily misled.
Perhaps they were disillusioned. Tamerlan said he did not have a single American friend. I wonder why that would be the case. Here's an illuminating interview with their uncle. [video=youtube;nZ3XV0fOhRs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZ3XV0fOhRs[/video]
You'd have to have massive replacement of the religious organization of the Sunni and Shia faiths and institutions also: some of the madness clearly emanates from the top.
